November 28, 2003
Press Conference - 27-11-03
on
Thursday, 27th November 2003 at 11:00 a.m.
at
Room 2006, One Pacific Place, 88 Queensway, Hong Kong
Alternative Schemes for Central Wanchai Waterfront
1. Our Society is pleased to circulate the Conceptual Plans and Explanatory Notes of two alternative schemes for the Central Wanchai Waterfront which will be brought to the attention of the Joint Meeting of the Panel on Planning, Lands and Works and Panel on Environmental Affairs this afternoon.
2. The first scheme shows improvements to the Central Wanchai Waterfront with minimum reclamation and without the proposed Central Wanchai Bypass.
3. The second scheme shows a minimum reclamation proposal for the Central and Wanchai Waterfront incorporating the proposed Central Wanchai Bypass which occupies the same alignment as that proposed by the Government.
4. The Explanatory Notes explain the details of the two schemes.
Special Committee to Supervise Funds
5. Up to 5:00 p.m. yesterday (Wednesday, 26th November 2003), the sum of HK$1,504,649.50 has been donated by the public. Our Former Chairman Mr. Winston K.S. Chu has made the same amount of donation to the Society on the basis of ‘Dollar for Dollar’ as he had undertaken to do so that the total donations now amounts to HK$3,009,298.11. .
6. A special committee comprising the following persons has been formed to look after this fund:-
Ms. Christine Loh (陸恭蕙小姐) - Chairperson
Mr. Winston K.S. Chu (徐嘉慎先生) - Adviser
Mr. Benjamin Chang (張斌先生) - Solicitor
Mr. Jeff Tse (謝澤權先生) - Solicitor
7. As set out in the Press Release dated 22nd September 2003, the fund will be used for the following purposes:-
A. To finance the present litigation undertaken by our Society including:
(a) The Appeal launched by the Town Planning Board to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court in favour of our Society over the Wanchai Reclamation.
(b) Any legal action that our Society may have to undertake to stop the Central Reclamation works now being carried on by the Government; and
(c) Any other legal action that may be necessary to enforce the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance.
NOTE: In order to avoid any possible conflict of interests, such fund will only be used for payment of counsel’s fees and disbursements and none of the fund will be used to pay the legal costs of Messrs. Winston Chu & Company.
B. To promote the ‘Friends of the Harbour’ Campaign which the Society will be conducting in order to attract greater public interest and public participation in the work of our Society to protect and promote the Harbour.
C. Any other work of our Society for the protection and preservation of the Harbour.
The Harbour Primer
8. Our Society has prepared the Harbour Primer. 240,000 copies in English and Chinese have been printed. These will be distributed to members of the public.
November 27, 2003
Alternative Two: Harbour Front for Central, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay
Summary
The approach is conceptual, based on sustainable development principles, good urban design and landscape design.
Fundamental Assumptions
1. The over-run tunnel for the Airport Railway will need to be completed.
2. To build the Airport Railway over-run tunnel, the Star Ferry Pier will need to be relocated;
3. The Central – Wan Chai by-pass will not be built and alternative traffic management measures will control traffic in Central and Wan Chai.
4. Only limited small scale development which facilitates the public enjoyment of the water front and harbour will be permitted.
5. The number of additional surface roads required is minimal as no additional development is proposed and the major road is downgraded .
Proposals for Central
The reclamation is reduced by approximately by over 100 metres and is limited to the area near the Star Ferry and Tamar. The remainder of the waterfront is existing public land which is to be redesigned as a promenade.
A new location closer to the existing piers is provided for the Star Ferry while a new Queen’s Pier is provided near the existing location. A waterfront park of around 3.9 ha is provided near Star Ferry.
A new east-west road, the Northern Avenue, will extend from Man Cheung St. at the IFC to join Hung Hing Road in Wan Chai. The alignment utilises existing roads such as Lung Wui Road, Convention Avenue and Hung Hing Road.
The reclaimed area is mainly a Public Promenade. Only two storey buildings will be permitted for waterfront commercial and entertainment uses
The total area of the proposed Central Reclamation is approximately 4.5 ha compared with approximately 25 ha in the Government’s plan.
Proposals for Wan Chai
There is no reclamation in the Wan Chai area. The existing promenade around the Exhibition and Convention Centre is improved. The Wan Chai Ferry Pier remains as it is. Additional pedestrian connection to the east and to the former Cargo Handling Area is provided on a boardwalk
The former Cargo Handling Area could become a vibrant waterfront activity area with scope for marine activities and entertainment, a public landing area and tourist boats. There is scope for restaurant and retail activities to be included in this area.
The existing Wan Chai Swimming Pool and Sports Ground remain. There is no additional development proposed in the Wan Chai Area.
The proposed marina to the west of the Yacht Club is deleted as there will be adequate water area retained within the Causeway Bay typhoon shelter.
The reclamation in this area is reduced by 50 to 100 metres and there would be no compared with approximately 14.6 ha in the Government's scheme.
Proposals for Causeway Bay
Without the Central Wan Chai By-pass the existing Yacht Club facilities remain unaffected so no reprovisioning is required.
The proposed KCRC rail tunnel will require a vent building on reclamation in front of the World Trade Centre and Excelsior Hotel and this will also remove an area of dead water. The existing waterfront to the east is retained and improved, and could be rehabilitation to a more natural environment.
The Harbour Park is deleted.
A continuous Pedestrian Promenade of 10 metres width is provided along the eastern edge of the typhoon shelter to North Point by using existing public land or by provision of a boardwalk.
The reclamation would be reduced by over 100 metres in places. The area of reclamation is approximately 0.7 ha compared with approximately 12.2 ha in the Government's scheme which included the Harbour Park.
Conceptual Map
Please click on image below for larger image.
Alternative One : Harbour Front for Central, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay
Introduction
The High Court has ruled that the Government’s proposals for the waterfront in Wan Chai and Causeway Bay are excessive. While that decision is still subject to appeal, it is apparent that if the approach advocated by the Court was applied to the Central Waterfront reclamation, then that too would be considered excessive.
It is possible to achieve a world class waterfront from Central to Causeway Bay with significantly less reclamation than that currently proposed by Government. The Alternative Harbour Front Plan indicates how this can be done while significantly increasing public access to the harbour.
This document briefly explains the approach taken. It is conceptual, based on sustainable development principles, good urban design and landscape opportunities, and does respect some basic engineering requirements. Other normally accepted engineering approaches may need to be reconsidered and a more sustainable approach adopted.
Fundamental Assumptions
The following fundamental assumptions have been made:-
1. The over-run tunnel for the Airport Railway will need to be completed so as to enable the Hong Kong Station and the Airport Railway to operate as designed;
2. To build the Airport Railway over-run tunnel, the Star Ferry Pier will need to be relocated;
3. The Central – Wan Chai by-pass will be built as designed in tunnel and reclamation. Provision of this underground by-pass will enable a reduction in roads on the reclamation and will provide opportunities for reduction of traffic and environmental improvements elsewhere in Central and Wan Chai;
4. On the reclamation only limited small scale development which facilitates the public enjoyment of the water front and harbour will be permitted.
5. The number of surface roads can be reduced and the major road, Road P2, is reduced in scale and becomes the Northern Avenue.
The following describes the proposals and the differences with the Governments plans.
Proposals for Central
The general line of reclamation is reduced by approximately 60 to 100 metres and now is located some 10 – 15 metres outside the proposed alignment of the Central Wan Chai Bypass.
The extent of reclamation on the western edge is now defined by the location of the existing Pier 7 and a seawall angled back towards the By-pass alignment, to facilitate tidal movements. The relocation of Pier 8 to this new sea wall allows for a significant reduction in reclamation while still enabling good public access to the harbour.
A new location is identified for the Star Ferry piers, closer to the existing piers and appropriate for the approved design of the Star Ferry as an icon on the waterfront. The existing Pier 7 and proposed Pier 8 should be considered as public piers to enable public access to the harbour as previously provided by Blake’s Pier and presently provided by Queen’s Pier.
The reduced reclamation formed in this western area provides a major public waterfront park as an extension to the Statute Square open space corridor. The Government's proposal for a “Ground Scraper” commercial building is deleted along with associated roads. The park would be approximately 150 metres wide by up to 300 metres long and would have an area of approximately 3.9 ha.
The former Road P2 is replaced by the Northern Avenue which extends from Man Cheung St. at the IFC to join Hung Hing Road in Wan Chai. This proposed road is reduced from dual three to dual two carriageway to reduce negative environmental and amenity impacts while the existing Hung Hing Road will be slightly widened and upgraded to provide an alternative east-west surface route for traffic. The alignment has been modified to utilise existing roads such as Lung Wui Road, Convention Avenue and Hung Hing Road, and to maximise the waterfront promenade.
The reclaimed area between the new sea wall and the Northern Avenue becomes the Public Promenade. It is a large space with a width of between 170m and 70m, sufficient to accommodate many different areas for different functions. Sufficient waterfront related commercial development sites have been identified to cater for public needs and to create interest. Buildings will be no greater than 2 stories high (15mPD) and located adjacent to the Northern Avenue for servicing. The amount of building proposed is significantly reduced from that proposed by Government
Areas of existing and reclaimed land to the south of the Northern Avenue have been reserved for Government, Institutional and Community Uses. The Tamar site has been retained as G/IC for public buildings, but could be reserved for open space use in conjunction with the use of the harbour front.
The total area of the Central Reclamation is now only approximately 15.1 ha compared with approximately 25.4 ha in the Government’s plan.
Proposals for Wan Chai
The ramps to and from the Central and Wan Chai By-pass in the vicinity of the Convention and Exhibition Centre have been retained so that there is benefit in relieving traffic flows in Wan Chai.
The alignment of the reclamation follows the By-pass with some curvature introduced to the east of the existing Convention Centre to assist with maintaining tidal flows. The Wan Chai Ferry Pier is relocated but in a similar position to the existing pier. It should be developed as a tourism feature on the waterfront rather than being just a Ferry Pier.
The alignment of the Northern Avenue follows the existing Hung Hing Road which is retained and slightly improved in width. This will now pass to the south of the tunnel portal and retain the connection to the existing flyover, providing an easterly connection to the IEC and Causeway Bay.
The existing Wan Chai Swimming Pool and Sports Ground remain unaffected. There is no additional development proposed in the Wan Chai Area and the proposed Convention Centre Stage 3 Extension is deleted. The removal of this additional development removes the need for additional roads and additional reclamation.
The Harbour Front between the Northern Avenue and the new sea wall is reserved as a public promenade with some small scale waterfront related entertainment and commercial uses.
The proposed marina to the west of the Yacht Club is deleted as there will be adequate water area retained within the existing Causeway Bay typhoon shelter.
The reclamation in this area is generally reduced in width by 50 to 100 metres. It is now approximately 8.7ha compared with approximately 14.6 ha in the Government's scheme.
Proposals for Causeway Bay
The Central Wan Chai By-pass becomes elevated as it passes across the existing Yacht Club site, it then passes across the typhoon shelter on a bridge structure linking into the IEC. There is a need to provide additional land to replace the facilities lost to the Yacht Club so that their marine related activities can continue unaffected. However, there is no need to reclaim land under the elevated road within the typhoon shelter. The new bridge structure should become a design feature rather than a visual obstacle, as it will be located in a dominant position.
The proposed KCRC rail tunnel will be partially built through the typhoon shelter and a vent building will be required on an area of reclamation in front of the World Trade Centre and Excelsior Hotel. Reclamation in this location will also remove an area of dead water which is polluted.
The only additional reclamation proposed in the typhoon shelter relates to the provision of a public promenade of approximately 10 metres in width to the north of the KCRC Vent Building, and further to the east where the existing water front is basically retained, but modified to improve the seawall and waters edge so that it provides a closer relationship to the water for pedestrians. Rehabilitation to a more natural environment should be considered, possibly with a beach and recreational activities. This is possible as the typhoon shelter is the only portion of the whole waterfront which is sheltered by an existing breakwater and is therefore not subject to significant wave action.
The Harbour Park is deleted.
It is considered necessary to provide improved pedestrian connections with the hinterland and Victoria Park.
It is assumed that the existing boats used for residential purposes in the eastern part of the typhoon shelter will be removed and the people re-housed as was originally proposed by Government. This design of the waterfront through the typhoon shelter will therefore retain a significant area of sheltered water for the mooring of boats and possibly other recreational water-based activities. A continuous pedestrian connection of 5 - 10 metres in width along the eastern edge of the typhoon shelter to North Point could be provided by using existing public land or by provision of a boardwalk of up to 10 metres in width.
The width of the reclamation would be reduced by over 100 metres in places. The total area of reclamation proposed in this area is approximately 1.4 ha compared with approximately 12.2 ha in the Government's scheme which included the Harbour Park.
Conclusion
This Alternative Harbour Front plan illustrates how there is tremendous scope for providing a magnificent public waterfront while reducing the amount of reclamation to the minimum needed for the construction of the Central to Wan Chai By-pass. This is achieved because commercial use of the formed land is significantly reduced and surface roads have been minimised.
This Alternative Harbour Front proposal will result in a reduction in reclamation of approximately 51.7%, or 27 ha, of that proposed in the Government's Scheme, while still providing the Central to Wan Chai By-pass. There would also be a significant reduction in implementation costs and expenditure of public funds through the major reduction in the scope of engineering works.
| (area in hectares) | Government Proposals | Alternative Proposals | Reduction |
| Central Reclamation | 25.4 | 15.1 | 10.3 |
| Wan Chai | 14.6 | 8.7 | 5.9 |
| Causeway Bay | 12.2 | 1.4 | 10.8 |
| Total |
52.2 |
25.2 48.3% |
27 51.7% |
Conceptual Map
Please click on image below for larger image.
Panel on Planning, Lands and Works and Panel on Environmental Affairs
Panel on Environmental Affairs
Joint Meeting on
Thursday, 27th November 2003 at 4:30 p.m.
In the Chamber of the Legislative Council Building
Submission by The Society for Protection of the Harbour Limited
Practical Impact of High Court Judgment
No Excessive Reclamation
1. As the recent High Court Judgment represents the present law, it is important to understand its practical consequences.
2. The Judgment only stops excessive reclamation but does not stop reclamation for a proper purpose. The Judgment supports reclamation which is really needed for the community, such as a needed highway, and not something which is merely interesting or desirable, such as a harbour park.
3. The Judgment seeks to strike a proper balance between conservation and development and condemns the cavalier attitude of the Government in regarding Victoria Harbour as a land bank and reclamation as a means to produce land for sale for commercial, residential, hotel, entertainment etc. development.
Reclamation After Harbour Ordinance
1. Despite the enactment of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance (“Harbour Ordinance”) in June 1997, Government had attempted to proceed with the following reclamations. Our Society was only able to stop such reclamations through the threat of legal proceedings in reliance upon the Harbour Ordinance.
Project Gazettal Size
Green Island Reclamation gazetted in 1996 190 hectares
Central Reclamation Phase III gazetted in 1998 38 hectares
South East Kowloon Reclamation gazetted in 1998 300 hectares
Tsuen Wan Bay Reclamation gazetted in 1999 30 hectares
Wanchai Reclamation Phase II gazetted in 2002 26 hectares
__________
Total Area Gazetted : 584 hectares
=========
Interpretation of the Harbour Ordinance
1. Since the enactment of the Harbour Ordinance, the Government and the Town Planning Board (“the Board”) had been adopting a wrong interpretation of the Ordinance despite repeated protestations by our Society and despite our Society repeatedly submitting to the Government and the Town Planning Board the correct interpretation which was eventually upheld by the High Court Judgment.
Misinterpretation and Misunderstanding of the Law
1. The Learned Judge found that the decisions of the Town Planning Board (“the Board”) were “based upon a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the law and flawed as a matter of law”.
2. The effect of this Judgment is that all the previous decisions made by the Board and the Government were wrong as a matter of law and such decisions were in contravention of the Harbour Ordinance.
Government Misleading Legco & Public
1. Therefore all the plans including the Central Reclamation Plan put forward by the Government to Legco were unlawful and in breach of the Ordinance.
2. Legco and the public were misinformed by the Government that these plans were lawful and duly complied with the Harbour Ordinance whereas in fact Government had failed to apply to the plans the three tests laid down by the Judgment.
3. As a result, the Central Reclamation Plan like the Wanchai Reclamation requires twice as much reclamation as is really needed by the Central/Wanchai By-pass and the extra reclamation areas are intended for commercial and other non-essential developments which the Harbour Ordinance does not allow.
Judgment’s Criticisms of Government’s Approach
1. The Judgment made the following criticisms:-
(a) “What the Board appeared to have done is to make use of the opportunity of reclaiming land for essential infrastructure to make zoning and planning provisions for developing the Harbour.”
(b) “Reclamation in present time should no longer be regarded as a convenient and ready-at-hand option to obtain additional land.”
(c) “The waters in the Harbour is also becoming precious in present time.”
(d) “Precisely because Hong Kong owes much of her present achievement to reclamation in the Harbour, it is incumbent upon public officials and authorities to treasure what is now left of the Harbour.”
Rule of Law
1. The Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) will hear this Appeal in 12 day’s time on 9th December 2003 and judgment is expected to be delivered by the middle of January 2004. In obedience to the Rule of Law, the Government must abide by the decision of the CFA and apply the Harbour Ordinance both to the Central Reclamation and the Wanchai Reclamation in accordance with the interpretation of the Ordinance that the CFA will prescribe.
Public Statement of the Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands
1. On 1st October 2003, the Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands wrote the following passage in the Hong Kong Economic Times:-
“I treasure every bit of the Victoria Harbour as much as everyone in Hong Kong does. In recent years, the special administrative region government has made every effort to comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and to avoid reclamation. It was only under the most compelling circumstances that essential and minimum reclamation would be carried out. Apart from works in Central, we are reviewing the proposed reclamation to be carried out in Wan Chai North.”
Public Statement of the Chief Executive Mr. Tung
1. On 17th October 2003 at the Australian Business Award Ceremony, the Chief Executive made the following statement in his speech:-
“Thirdly, I want to tell you that on July 8th this year, the court ruled that another reclamation in Wan Chai, according to the judge’s interpretation of the law, should only be carried out if it is of over-riding importance, if there is an immediate need, and that there are no other alternatives, and that impairment to the harbour is minimal. I think these are very good, very sound judgment, and we would certainly like to make sure that whatever we do we should comply with the particular ruling.”
Preliminary Note on the Need for Central-Wanchai Bypass
By: Geoffrey Rogers and John Patient
Historical Perspective
Historically, governments throughout the world have built highways to cater for the anticipated increase in demand for movement of people and goods by road. The extent and rate at which they have done this depends by and large on two factors: (i) the space available; and (ii) the rate of growth in the economy. The latter generates both demand for road use and the revenues to pay for infrastructure.
In cities, the rate of growth of demand for private passenger travel by road is ameliorated by the presence of good public transport; and in general, the greater the population and employment density of the city, the greater the share of passenger travel by public transport. Hong Kong is no exception to this general rule and has a very high level of passenger travel by public transport. The provision of high quality public transport does not affect the demand for goods vehicle movements nor does it impact on the use of private vehicles by senior executives and for non-commuting work related travel.
As a general rule, the approach of most governments is to slowly build new infrastructure in response to demand, which fluctuates over time depending on the state of the economy. New highways are built and justified in terms of its economic benefits to road traffic (both goods and passengers) but may also have environmental benefits, especially road by-passes, when through traffic is removed from city streets.
Many road by-pass schemes of towns in the UK now come as a complete package of by-pass plus town centre improvements designed to “lock in” the benefits of the traffic reductions created by the by-pass. These improvement schemes typically include pedestrianisation measures, streets design, as well as other environmental improvements.
Some cities are now at the stage however where lack of space and concern for the environment is causing them to eschew new road projects in favour of pricing some of the traffic off the roads at peak times and in certain areas. London and Singapore are examples where this has been undertaken.
General car ownership in Hong Kong is constrained by the costs of owning and maintaining the vehicle as it is in all other countries. Car ownership increases when disposable incomes move ahead faster than the ownership costs. There is therefore an inherent restraint on car ownership but less restraint on car usage. Pricing schemes such as those used in London and Singapore would produce a more focussed restraint on car usage in terms of time of day and location without affecting car ownership.
Perceived Problems in Central and Wanchai
Our preliminary review of Central and Wanchai identifies the following traffic related problems, which persist throughout much of the working day:
• Pollution
• High degree of conflict between pedestrians and traffic
• Low traffic speeds
• Extensive one way routings to cater for peak hour traffic and banned turns
• High degree of conflict between servicing traffic and through traffic
• Inadequate footway widths
• Inadequate kerb lengths for loading and unloading due to waiting restrictions
• Poor road hierarchy definition
Also, we find that Connaught Road Central, Harcourt Road and Gloucester Road, which form the main east-west route and which are classified as urban trunk roads, are sub-standard for this purpose. Trunk roads are intended to carry longer distance traffic between the major urban centres and are primarily intended to carry vehicular traffic with minimal pedestrian activity. The spacing of road junctions should ideally be 1km or more. We find however that the route has frequent side-road junctions in the form of off-and-on slips and a number of under-passes and over-passes that have been constructed to maintain through traffic movements at junctions such as at Pedder Street and at Cotton Tree Drive. It also has many bus stops along its length.
The proliferation of side road accesses creates problems of weaving and merging traffic, which have been controlled to a limited extent by a large array of double white lines. The stopping-and-starting of buses along the way further exacerbates the problem.
Finally, we note that Gloucester Road is badly affected by traffic queuing to enter the Central Harbour Crossing Tunnel in that all other traffic movements are impeded by the queuing traffic.
Suggested Package of Measures to be associated with any road scheme for Central and Wanchai
The CWB should carry with it a package of measures designed to lock in the benefits of the by-pass arising from the reductions of traffic flow in these areas.
These measures could include for example:
• Downgrading of Gloucester Road, Harcourt Road and Connaught Road to distributor status.
• A review of the road hierarchy and local access routes to simplify and improve hinterland access particularly from Gloucester Road, Harcourt Road and Connaught Road.
• Traffic calming and pedestrianisation schemes to create pedestrian priority areas and force out inappropriate traffic.
• Transfer of bus routes and stops onto Gloucester Road, Harcourt Road and Connaught Road from less suitable routes where possible.
• Greater emphasis on the needs of local servicing traffic.
• Balancing of the Central and Western Harbour Crossing Tolls so that more traffic uses the Western Harbour Crossing once the bypass is in place.
Minimum Functional Requirements of the Bypass and Surface Roads
If the CWB is to be constructed then we find that the government scheme in itself (ignoring reclamation proposals) is probably a “do-minimum” scheme in that it provides for a junction at each end and one in the middle at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre (HKCEC). It also provides the missing link in the trunk road network on the north shoreline of Hong Kong Island.
If a review is undertaken of the CWB and its junctions, we recommend a reconsideration of the connections between the by-pass and the hinterland particularly with regard to providing for all directions of traffic movement at the HKCEC and Causeway Bay junctions so as to maximise usage of the by-pass especially for west bound traffic from Wanchai and Causeway Bay areas. If this could be achieved than this would go a long way to making access to Western Harbour Crossing from these areas more straightforward and would remove additional traffic from Central. In such reconsideration, the use of grade-separated roundabouts may produce a more compact solution than free flow slip roads.
There are other surface roads associated with the reclamation, which may be reduced in scale depending on the amount of new development associated with the reclamation. Known problems that these surface roads should resolve are the access to the International Finance Centre (IFC) area, which is a problem since it was designed on the basis that surface roads would be provided on the reclamation.
Surface roads on the reclamation should facilitate internal local connections between any new developments (if any) on the reclamation. However, the creation of yet another east-west route should be avoided by minimising the capacity of the roads and creating frequent signal controlled junctions.
Alternative Schemes Considered
The Hong Kong Government and consulting traffic engineers and planners have studied the existing problems in Central and Wanchai for many years. It would be fair to say that the existing situation is the culmination of years of fine-tuning with traffic engineering solutions and small-scale infrastructure improvements. We believe no further significant improvements can be made with this type of solution.
In order to provide significant improvements in the affected areas, traffic flow must be reduced below their current levels and then held there. This would then facilitate the introduction of the improvement schemes mentioned above.
The necessary flow reduction can only be achieved practically by “demand restraint” using some form of road pricing but ensuring that it is appropriate to Hong Kong.
One method would be to increase the tunnel tolls to an extent that traffic flows to and from Hong Kong Island are reduced sufficiently to achieve the desired flow reductions in Central and Wanchai. Any such scheme would only be successful if a substantial proportion of the harbour crossing traffic had an origin or destination either in or passing through Central and Wanchai.
A second option would be to introduce electronic road pricing (ERP) such that the cost of travelling on the roads in Central and Wanchai was set at sufficiently high a level to effect the necessary traffic flow reductions. This latter option has the benefit of being much more selective in the choice of target area.
Either option would require a major change in government policy from one of catering for demand by gradually increasing network capacity to one of restraining demand to suit network capacity. For both options there would be a continuing need to increase charges over time so that the deterrent effect is not eroded by inflation and general growth in disposable incomes.
Conclusions
Reductions in traffic flow in Central and Wanchai are required to improve the environment and for operational reasons sooner rather than later. It should be remembered that the current method of road planning carries its own set of “external costs” that have never been factored into the overall equation. Once the various other benefits could be showed to exist and be “locked in” by an associated package of measures, policy-makers might find it easier to persuade the public to accept a policy change to implement road pricing more effectively.
November 04, 2003
Central & Wanchai Reclamations - Order of Events
4/1/ 2002
Invitation to apply for pre-qualification for CR3 tender was published.
12/8/2002
Five parties were invited to tender for the contract with closing date set for 11 October 2002.
30/9/2002
Tender closing date extended to 8 November 2002.
31/102002
Tender closing date further extended to 22 November 2002.
29/11/2002
SPH attended a TPB objection hearing to the Draft Wanchai Development Plan (WD2) on the basis that it contravened the PHO. SPH advised the TPB that it might have to take legal action if the TPB approved a plan that was unlawful.
17/12/ 2002
CE-in-Council approved the Central Reclamation Plan (CR3) for 23.11 ha for the purposes of provision of:
Land for infrastructure, including the CWB;
Cultural and government facilities;
Commercial developments;
An ‘open deck’; and
Open space.
23/12/2002
Tender price for CR3 was opened.
27/12/2002
CR3 was gazetted.
7/1/2003
SPH sent letter to TPB giving notice that it would institute JR proceedings for WD2 after knowing that its objections had been rejected by the TPB.
10/1/2003
TPB gazetted a new WD2.
30/1/2003
Central Tender Board (CTB) met to discuss tender submissions for CR3. TDD and its consultant recommended on the 28 January 2003 that the award be given to China Harbour. At the meeting, TDD informed the CTB of the possibility of an application for JR by the SPH for WR might delay the authorization of the OZP, which would in turn affect the authorization for the CWB tunnel works. The CTB asked TDD to substantiate its latest assessment of the CWB works being carried out according to the tender schedule.
6/2/2003
CTB met again. Territory Development Department (TDD) noted that the chances of the CWB works being carried out according to the tender schedule was slim but government wanted to press on with the CWB works within the CR3 tenure. “The option of issuing a new instruction to carry out the CWB Works after completion of the reclamation works would be extremely disruptive and would not be in the public interest”. CTB recommended that CR3 contract be awarded to Leighton JV.
7/2/2003
SFST approved the CTB recommendation to award CR3 contract to Leighton JV.
8/2/2003
Tenderer, China Harbour, requested meeting with the Director of Territory Development (DTD) to discuss the tender.
10/2/2003
Letter issued to Leighton JV to award CR3 contract to it with contract commencement date 28 February 2003. China Harbour continued to seek meeting, requesting that DTD withhold the award pending clarification. Tendered, Penta, also asked for the award to be withheld.
11/2/2003
DTD advised China Harbour that the award had been made.
12/2/2003
China Harbour filed complaint to the Review Body on Bid Challenges that the WTO GPA had been contravened. Subsequently, other tenderers also filed complaints.
14/2/2003
SPH attended another TPB objection hearing on the new WD2 plan and repeated its objections to various aspects of plan including that it might have to take legal action if the TPB approved a plan that was unlawful.
27/2/2003 & 28/2/2003
SPH submitted application for JR for the TPB approval for the WD2, and leave was granted on 28 February 2003.
31/3/2003
Opening submissions to the Review Body began and in the end over 100 days was needed for the process to be completed.
8/7/2003
Judgment for the JR was handed down granting an Order of Certiorari to quash the TPB’s decision on WD2.
14/7/2003
Review Body handed down its ruling noting that the issuance of the tender award to Leighton JV was done in “undue haste”, and the effect of TDD’s “precipitous action” has been “to render nugatory any substantive recommendation that this Panel could make.” The Panel noted that the correct procedure would have been for the TDD to ask all the tenderers to re-tender.
17/7/2003
SPH requested the TPB, SHPL and SETW to ‘urgently review’ present and future harbour reclamation projects to ensure they comply with the PHO in light of the Judgment.
29/7/2003
Dredging work for CR3 began.
11/8/2003
SPH wrote to TPB, SHPL and SETW again to urge urgent review.
19/8/ 2003
TPB replied to SPH that: “it will take the necessary steps to review those OZPs involving reclamation schemes to ensure they comply with the Judgment and are within the law”.
26/8/2003
TPB applied for leave to appeal the WD2 decision seeking to ‘leapfrog’ to the CFA to seek a determination on the legality of the TPB’s decision to approve the WR, and also a statement of the legal principles for the interpretation of the PHO.
26/8/2003
SHPL replied to SPH that: “it is our intention … to refer the relevant approved OZPs to the TPB for review, where found necessary”.
27/8/2003
SPH wrote to the TPB urging immediate review of reclamation projects and emphasized that pending the review, “all works should be suspended in the meantime”.
4/9/2003
CFA indicated the possibility of setting the appeal down for 9 December to 19 December 2003, which was subsequently approved by the Appeal Committee on 29 September 2003.
13/9/2003 & 16/9/2003
Rock filling and piling works for CR3 began.
17/9/2003
SPH’s solicitors wrote to TPB, SHPL and SETW requesting them to review the continued implementation of the CR3 asking for cessation of continuing with reclamation works.
24/9/2003
DoJ replied to SPH that: “the Director of Territory Development, in consultation with his consultants, the Transport Department and the Highways Department, has initiated a review of CR3 to ascertain if it meets the three tests set out in the Judgment. The Government is satisfied that the reclamation works currently underway are in compliance with the three tests, and are hence lawful”.
26/9/2003 & 27/9/2002
Application for JR for CR3 granted and on 27 September 2003, the SHPL announced that all marine works related to CR3 would be suspended temporarily pending the outcome of the SPH’s application for interim injunctive relief.
3/10/2003
Hearing for interim relief for CR3.
6/10/2003
Ruling for interim relief for CR3 handed down. The court did not grant the interim injunctive relief because the SPH was in no position to provide an undertaking in damages to protect the respondents and that the works being done can be ‘undone’ pending the JR proceedings set for February 2004.
Central & Wanchai Reclamations
Doubts as to Government's Good Faith
Summary of Concerns
New evidence raises doubts as to the good faith of the HKSAR Government and the Town Planning Board (TPB) in making or not making decisions as the case may be in relation to Central Reclamation 3rd Phase (CR3).
1. Present a ‘fait accompli’ to foil legal proceedings
The new evidence indicates that decisions to proceed with CR3 was expedited as soon as the Society for Protection of the Harbour (SPH) made known its intention to seek a Court pronouncement on the correct legal interpretation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance (PHO) in November 2002 (see Appendix ‘Order of Events’).
The award for the tender works relating to CR3 was made hastily in February 2003 (as per the Ruling of the Review Body on Bid Challenges 14/7/03) whereas the proper procedure would have been to call a re-tender. The Review Body noted in its Ruling that the government’s “precipitous action” in making the award instead of calling a re-tender “rendered nugatory any substantive recommendation” that the Review Body could make. In other words, the circumstances present a fait accompli.
The SPH is concerned that the true reason for not calling a re-tender at the time could have been to foil the pending legal proceedings so as to present another ‘fait accompli’, which would have the effect of ensuring that it would be too late or too expensive to stop or rectify the reclamations works in the event that the SPH wins the appeal set for early December 2003.
2. Serious conflict of interest
The application for reclamation is made by government officials, the same officials who under the PHO have a continuing duty to protect and preserve Victoria Harbour. The officials must demonstrate that they have been acting fairly, conscientiously and completely above-board in strict compliance with the law in reviewing CR3.
The TPB needs to inform the public whether and when it may have met to review CR3 in terms of the three tests set by the Judgment for WD2 (compelling overriding and present need; no viable alternative; and minimum impairment). The Government claimed to have carried out a review but has released no information on timing or the process it followed to review CR3.
Background
1. CR3 & ED2 are connected
CR3 and Wanchai Development Plan (WD2) need to be viewed together as there is a significant degree of overlap and inter-connection between them, especially since the main justification for both plans is the provision of the Central-Wanchai By-Pass (CWB).
2. Duty to Review
The Judgment for WD2 handed down on 7 July 2003 effectively meant that the authorities needed to review both present and future harbour reclamation projects to ensure that such projects comply with the PHO in light of the judgment. This point is not in dispute.
• On 18 August 2003, the TPB noted that it:
“ … will take the necessary steps to review those draft OZPs involving reclamation schemes to ensure they comply with the Judgment and are within the law”.
• On 25 August, the Secretary for Housing, Planning & Lands (SHPL) said that:
“… it is our intention to recommend to the Chief Executive-in-Council to refer the relevant approved OZPs to the TPB for review, where found necessary”.
3. Who has duty to review?
The SHPL acknowledged that the proper body to review all projects (including CR3) is the TPB and not government units. The Chief Executive-in-Council has no plan-making function or power under the law. Its function is only to approve OZPs made by the TPB (Section 9(1)(a) TPO).
4. Has that duty been carried out?
(a) It appears that the TPB has not reviewed CR3.
(b) However, governments unit have instead. On 24 September 2003, the DoJ advised that:
“… the Director of Territory Development, in consultation with his consultants, the Transport Department and the Highways Department, has initiated a review of CR3 to ascertain if it meets the three tests set out in the Judgment. The Government is satisfied that the reclamation works currently underway are in compliance with the three tests, and are hence lawful”.
(c) In any event, how that review conducted by DTD, TD and HD was performed has not been explained in terms of either timing or process.
(d) In the mean time, the government has continued to reclaim under CR3.